================
@@ -2228,3 +2242,62 @@ QualType SemaHLSL::getInoutParameterType(QualType Ty) {
Ty.addRestrict();
return Ty;
}
+
+// Walks though existing explicit bindings, finds the actual resource class
+// decl the binding applies to and sets it to attr->ResourceField.
+// Additional processing of resource binding can be added here later on,
+// such as preparation for overapping resource detection or implicit binding.
+void SemaHLSL::ProcessResourceBindingOnDecl(VarDecl *D) {
+ if (!D->hasGlobalStorage())
+ return;
+
+ for (Attr *A : D->attrs()) {
+ HLSLResourceBindingAttr *RBA = dyn_cast<HLSLResourceBindingAttr>(A);
+ if (!RBA)
+ continue;
+
+ // // Cbuffers and Tbuffers are HLSLBufferDecl types
+ if (const HLSLBufferDecl *CBufferOrTBuffer = dyn_cast<HLSLBufferDecl>(D)) {
+ assert(RBA->getRegisterType() ==
+ getRegisterType(CBufferOrTBuffer->isCBuffer()
+ ? ResourceClass::CBuffer
+ : ResourceClass::SRV) &&
+ "this should have been handled in DiagnoseLocalRegisterBinding");
+ // should we handle HLSLBufferDecl here?
----------------
bob80905 wrote:
I think so? It would definitely make sense if you were to change the additional
member type in RBA to a Decl instead of a field decl, since HLSLBufferDecl
hopefully inherits from Decl
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111203
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
